Sloth Squad
The Procedure
One of the six planning members read each application’s information for all of the audience and commissioners to hear, including the location of the property and description of surrounding lots and land uses, the existing zoning and the zoning request, the proposed use, the applicant(s) and their information, the current property owners, and the planner in charge of the project. With said information and visuals on a large screen at the head of the room, any major problems were presented to the planner representing that area. For example, the planner in charge of traffic comme
nted on the traffic study done during the application process or the grants coordinator would discuss any economic problems that could come as a result of the application.
Then, the project planner would come to the podium to answer any questions from the commissioners, this podium being centered in the room with the back of the planner to the public while they addressed the commissioners directly. The planner’s role was to be well informed on all that was and would be involved in the project and to defend, as well as explain, the plan against any scrutiny the commissioners might bring or points of argument from the public.
At that point, community members and people involved in the project (eg. surveyors, property owners, applicants representative) were then able to stand at the podium and talk for or against the application. Some presenters brought handouts for the commissioners, diagrams, or even PowerPoints with visuals in order to distinctly present their arguments.
Once everyone who had wanted to speak got the chance, and there were no further statements or questions, the Director (Scott Messer) of the commission called roll to vote “yes” or “no” regarding the project. If the vote was a majority “yes,” the application was approved by the Development Commission. If the majority was a “no” vote, the application could either be modified to address the concerns of the council and community and retried in the future or a new plan could be created altogether.
Atmosphere in the room
At the beginning of the meeting the atmosphere was cooperative, especially when dealing with simple “yes” or “no” cases. The more adversity towards the case that was present in the room the more hostile it became. Only two cases had community members come to the podium to speak against the proposed plan.
The atmosphere during the voting process shifted to account for the change in procedural standards. It was silent so everyone could hear the remarks and answers from the commissioners, and the room was more tense due to any community opposition that might have existed.
Application Z14-059 saw some audience members becoming vocal due to opposition to the votes of the commissioners.
Application Z15-060
Location: 541 Lazelle Rd
Existing Zoning: L-C-3; Limited Commercial District (building height limited to 35 ft)
Request: L-C-3; Limited Commercial District
Proposed Use: Monopole telecommunications antenna (110ft.)
Applicant(s): SBA Towers VI, LLC; ℅ Stephen V. Cheatham;
Atty Buckley King 600 Superior Avenue East; Suite 1400, Columbus, Ohio 43215
Property Owners: Applicant
Planner: Shannon Pine
First, a member of the commission read off the above information to the entire board of commissioners and public, then asked for the speaker that was representing the project to come to the podium to answer questions and concerns. The reason for this request was because the current zoning in the area limits the height of buildings to 35 feet, and the intended plan called for a tower that was well beyond that, at 110 feet. The plan’s surveyor spoke for the project, answering any questions the commissioners had. He used a visual to explain to the commissioners the layout of the surrounding land, as well as to present the plan to have trees and bushes covering the fence and base of the tower to make it blend in and more pleasing to the eye. A commissioner who helped plan the windmill tower off Sawmill Road asked if the tower would hit any buildings in the event of a collapse, to which the surveyor replied that the way the tower would be designed inhibits the tower from falling outwards but rather, collapsing in the center, which will cause the tower to fall straight down. This was concluded to be safe for the surrounding area, because
most of the land around it is undeveloped, but there was mention of future plans to build condos in surrounding land.
Two citizens spoke against the plan as residents of a single family neighborhood where the tower was only 238 feet away from their property line. One woman argued that this pole would affect housing prices and that because she had already refinanced her house, she was concerned for a future inability to sell her home. Another woman brought up the cell tower that was already present within a quarter mile of this new pole’s site, questioning what the necessity for another one would be. She also argued that looking at the pole will be aesthetically displeasing and an eye sore.
After the opposition spoke the project’s speaker came to the podium to rebut said arguments. He argued that adding another pole would increase cell reception and allow multiple calls to be available. The commission said that by law the tower will need gardens and crops surrounding the outer edge. The project’s speaker said that would be no problem and after no further questions from the board he stepped down and roll was called.
There was a unanimous six “yes” votes, though in saying “yes” several commissioners commented to the public that they sympathized with their concerns regarding housing prices. Others mentioned that the future development of condos 125 feet south of the pole would help obstruct the pole from the direct view of the neighborhood.
The City Seekers
Members of our group, The City Seekers, attended the Development Commission Meeting on February 11th. The room in which the meeting was held was set up with a podium in the center of the room, with the committee members sitting to the front left of the podium and the city staff sitting to the front right. Between the two groups, there were 6 committee members who would be casting a vote, and 6 city staff members there to provide input, leading to a total of 12 government officials sitting at the head of the meeting. A projector being used for presentations from various parties was being cast onto the wall in between the city staff and council members, and there was audience seating behind the podium stretching to the back wall of the room. There were between 70-80 people in the crowd attending the meeting. The meeting started with a call to order. A staff member began introducing the first case almost immediately. During the introduction, the development application was reviewed, and the attendees were informed of the location, existing zoning, request, and proposed use of the application. Pictures of the surrounding area (north, south, east, and west of the site location) were also projected on the wall, and descriptions of the location were provided. After an introduction of the case a representative from Traffic Department was given a chance to address any concerns they may have regarding the case being introduced, followed by a representative of the Parks and Recreation department giving their input. The representative of the case is allowed to speak and answer any initial questions from the board. Then the public is given the chance to speak, allowing up to three people opposing the case and three people supporting the case the opportunity to express their opinions. The person representing the case is then given a chance to rebuttal. During the presentations from the citizens and representatives, committee members are allowed to ask questions and express opinions. If any new information was added to the case the council votes to add that to the record. After all of the questions have been answered and speakers have finished presenting their information, the committee votes to recommend approval or denial to city council, who will ultimately approve or deny the application.
For the majority of the applications reviewed, the atmosphere was very lighthearted. There were initially a total of 7 applications, but one was withdrawn, so only 6 were presented and reviewed. The first 4 application reviews went by fairly quickly, with no objection from the public or council, leading to quick recommendations for approval. The 5th case, however, was slightly more hostile. There were two community members who strongly opposed the application presented, and there was an extensive discussion between the application representatives and the committee about the issues brought up. Ultimately, however, the application was approved and the two women in opposition of it left the building, taking the hostility towards that case with them. The 6th case, however, was overwhelming hostility from the majority of the community members in attendance, since this was the case they had come to see. There crowd was in opposition to a new housing development close to their current homes, and their passionate feeling on the matter led to several outbursts of applause when the opposition spoke, and yelling when the applicant representatives were up speaking. Even after the vote was cast and the development was ultimately denied, the audience was upset that there had been two votes for recommendation of approval. Overall, I would say the atmosphere was split, half the time being lighthearted and the other half being hostile, since although the majority of cases were not adversarial, the two cases that were took up the majority of the time.
The 5th case discussed, originally the 6th case before the 2nd was withdrawn, was the case our group decided to focus on. The property location was 541 Lazelle Road, and the existing zoning was L-C-3, Limited Commercial District. The request was not to change to the zoning area, but instead to break the existing height limitation of 35 feet, and put in a 110 foot monopole telecommunications antenna. The area is part of the Far North Columbus Communities Coalition, which recommended approval for the antenna. There were initially no questions from the board for the applicant representatives, who were the lawyer for the applicant and a city planner working with the applicant. However, when the case was opened up to hear what the public had to say, two women from a neighborhood south of the intended site of the antenna went up to the podium and expressed some concerns they had. They believed that the cell tower would be an eye sore, and decrease the value of their homes. In addition, one of the ladies was elderly, and was concerned about the potential health risks of living that close to a cell tower. They also pointed out there was another cell tower relatively close to the area, so they did not see the need for a second one. The representatives for the applicants had the chance to come back up and address the concerns, and answer any questions the committee and staff may have after the concerns were brought up. The representatives assured that the tower would be 230 feet from property lines, and that it would be beneficial to the community, since the existing cell tower was a lower quality than the one they would be providing. The new tower would provide better reception, and would be able to hold multiple calls at one time. In addition, it was pointed out that there was currently an application in the process of being approved for the development of condos in the area, which would block the sight of the tower for the neighborhood the concerned citizens resided in. The committee and staff then asked about issues regarding if there would be natural foliage to cover the base of the complex, since live vegetation was required by law, and they questioned if it could potentially destroy anything if it were to fall. The representatives assured the applicant was willing to comply with any regulations, and there would be vegetation provided to shield the base. Additionally, they assured the committee that there was no chance the antenna could fall, due to the way it would be built and the durability of it. Ultimately, the committee recognized the ability of the applicant to do a good job and work with the regulations in place, and the tower was approved at a 6-0 vote.
Plan B
Our team attended the Development Commission Meeting on February 11th. At the front of the room, there was a screen on which a presentation were displayed. There were three tables positioned in a U formation in front of that. In front of these tables there was a podium facing the screen where people spoke for or against certain cases. In front of this, there were two areas of chairs with an aisle in between. This is where the people sat. If you’re facing the front of the room, the commission sits at the left table while the planners (called “staff” during the meeting) sat at the right table facing the commission. People from the audience spoke at the podium facing the screen. I think the layout was like this so that everyone involved could easily talk with each other. The layout doesn’t make anyone seem more or less powerful than anyone else.
The atmosphere of the room seemed serious and a bit fast paced during the meeting, but was at the same time friendly and conversational. Before the meeting, everyone seemed to be chatting away. I noticed that most of the people in the audience were older, probably in their 50s or 60s.
The procedure during the meeting was conducted in a specific way. The staff (planners) present the issue. While they do this they discuss things like zoning. There were a lot of visuals to go along with these descriptions which were displayed on the screen at front. After this, the commission asks the staff any questions they have. Next, people speaking in favor of the project have a chance to do so. Then, people speaking against the project can do so. Finally, the commission votes for approval or disapproval. However, they don’t make the final decision. City Council makes the official decision for approval or disapproval.
Here is some specific information about Case #6: an issue about whether or not to build a new cell tower in a field near a cul-de-sac. The proposed tower conformed to all necessary regulations and the commission had no questions initially. At that point, two women (homeowners) came up to speak against the project. They argued that the sight of the tower would lower their land value by spoiling the view, and that there was already a cell tower nearby, so they didn’t need another one. One of the women was also concerned about the long term health effects of living near a cell tower. After this, two men (the surveyor and the applicant) came up to speak for the project. They argued that the cell tower was 250 ft away from the houses, well in excess of the required setback, and that a future condo would be built between the cell tower site and the neighborhood, completely hiding the tower from view. They also said that the towers purpose was to provide better reception in the area. One commision member was concerned what would happen if the tower fell. The applicant explained that the only way that could happen would be if the tower came unbolted from its base. He also said that the tower is designed to fold rather than fall, so it would not hit any buildings. The commission members seemed sympathetic to the women but all voted for approval. The thing that the commission members mentioned that seemed to influence their approval was the fact that the condo would hide the tower from view, as the tower affecting property values was the crux of the women’s argument.
Combover Inc.
On Feburary 11 we attended the Community Development Meeting for the city of Columbus. The procedure of the meeting began with the speaker of the board introducing the next issue. They would explain what the project is, where the site is, and whether the city recommended approval or denial. There would be many visuals of the site on a slide show projected on the board in front of everyone. They would ask the person representing the project to come forward and it was often the applicant’s attorney. This person would have the chance to explain any aspects of the project. Then they would ask if anyone from the audience would like to speak. They could come forward, state who they were, and argue any points they had against the project. Then the representative of the project would come back to the stand to defend themselves and answer any questions of the planners and other board members. Once all questions were asked, they would call roll and each of the 6 board members would say yes or no to the plan and decide whether the plan was accepted or denied.
The role of the planner in this procedure was to first ensure that their project presented followed all zoning laws before presenting the idea to the council. During the meeting, they would come to the front and present the proposal to the council ensuring everything was understood. The would explain all aspects and be available to answer any questions the members might have had.
The final case was regarding a parcel of land split into two halves by a cluster of trees. This land is surrounded by single family housing. This was the second time this case had been brought to a development meeting- and some changes has been made to address previously made concerns. The proposition was to develop this land into half assisted living, and half apartments, while preserving the trees. The separate developments would be connected by trails made in the dense forested area dividing the two. Because of objections to the original density of the development, it was nearly halved. After the woman presented her case, those opposed spoke up. Many people, almost the entire audience, were members of surrounding neighborhoods, and strongly opposed this development project. They did not like the idea of this incredible increase in the population. They believed this would heavily increase traffic, because there was no apparent plans to change the roadways, despite the possible surge in population. They also argued that there had already recently been an addition of apartment complexes to the area, and there was no need for anymore. They were all very intense about their arguments, and stood firmly against everything the woman had proposed. After those opposed had spoke their case, the woman came back to the stand for a rebuttal. She repeated a lot of what she has said before, and tried to get those opposed to understand that she believed this to be truly the best plan for this land. If it was made into single family housing, the trees would not be preserved, and the land not utilized to its fullest. The commission members tied the vote, so it would be sent to city council for final approval. Many members took the citizens many concerns to heart, and believed they deserved the right to prevent unwanted issues within the community. However, some members saw the lack of alternatives for the land, and believed that this was the best bet. The final commissioner stated that he had planned on voting no, but because he came down to the deciding vote decided to vote yes for the tie. The audience was very upset with this decision, and many yelled at him, saying that was ridiculous reasoning. The meeting ended after this, and the many neighborhood members were very very unhappy as they left.
Overall, the layout of the room was fairly simple and organized. Being this way, the meeting was easy to follow. The layout consisted of the power point in the front of the room for everyone to see. The city staff sat on the right side of the room and the panel on the left,facing one another. There was a podium and a mic in place in the center of the room facing the power point for speakers from the audience. Finally,the audience was in the back, facing the power point. The image to left shows a view from the back right corner of the room. Two men are presenting evidence of their case for the panel to discuss.
The atmosphere was fairly conservative–this was mostly due to the fact that the room was comprised of an elderly resident population. Many members of an assisted living home were in attendance to dispute the development of an apartment complex near their place of residence. Speakers from this group made it clear that they were not interested in having “transients” nearby. Otherwise, there was a strong community presence and it was very participatory and open. In the interest of time, it seemed as though many of the proposals were rushed and approved very quickly by the board.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
Blog #4
Collegiate Rebel Penguins
The room was organized with what appeared to be the experts (i.e. traffic management, parks and recreation, etc.) sitting at a table in the front of the room, perpendicular to the screen, and the board members parallel to them, also in the front. The audience sat in rows parallel to and facing the screen. Starting with the less disputed and more minute cases, the facilitator would read off the case numbers and descriptions and show the site plan on the screen. The applicants would make their way up to the podium, which was situated between the board members, experts, and audience members and was facing the screen. The chief chairman would ask the experts if there were any traffic problems or parks and recreational problems. If there was a problem, the experts would explain the situation. The chairman would then ask the audience if anyone opposed or supported the applicant. If yes, then they would go to the podium and argue their case. The chairman would then ask the board members if they had any questions for the applicant. After everything was made clear, the board members would vote on the case with either a “yes,” “no,” or “abstain.” The majority of the vote would be necessary to approve the plan.
There were seven scheduled cases to be reviewed, however one case was postponed for another day. The first four cases had little to no controversy or opposition and were approved by traffic and parks and recreation. It was difficult to hear some of the experts and board members from the back of the room. The entire room was full with citizens and applicants. The only two cases that received a reaction from the audience were the fifth and sixth cases. The fifth case had two nearby residents argue against the case and the representative of the applicant and a surveyor argue in favor of the case. The sixth (last) case involved the majority of the audience in attendance. The plan was to build an assisted living complex and a single family neighborhood off of Ulry Rd. and Warner Rd. was highly opposed by the community members adjacent to the site location. The entire process of the case had strong reactions from the audience. The largest reaction occurred at the very end when the board members were voting on their decision. By the time the chief chairman had to cast a vote, the other board members had three vote no and one vote yes. The chief chairman told the audience that he would vote no if the vote relied on him, but since his vote wouldn’t sway the final decision and since he wished to see an improved plan rather than no plan, he voted yes. Many members in the audience were not pleased with this decision and started verbally opposing the decision. Apart from that, the audience was well behaved and well mannered.
The fifth case regarded SBA Towers building a monopole telecommunications antenna on Lazelle Rd. Two residents of a nearby condominium complex spoke against the construction of the monopole. They adamantly opposed it and gave reasons such as poor aesthetics, house prices falling, and potential health effects from the tower. The representative of the applicant argued that a condominium complex was in the process of being built between the current complex and the location of the monopole. The representative defended the merits of constructing the monopole and at one point told the board members that they will do “whatever it takes” to approve the tower. At one point, the representative invited a surveyor up to the podium to offer expert advice on the project. The surveyor brought printed site plans of the location and its surroundings. He placed the plans on the table where the board members were sitting and explained what it was portraying. The board members all approved the case with a requirement from the parks and recreation department to add vegetation around the site.
Being a part of this meeting was both exciting and eye-opening for us. The room was electric with both the opinions of the Columbus citizens, along with the ideals presented by the council members. It was great to see the action being played out right in front of us, knowing that the changes being made were actually being implemented in the city in which we live. Experiencing real world situations that will affect local neighborhoods for decades to come is unique compared to learning about historical situations or theories in a classroom setting. It’s crazy to think that changes like this happen constantly within cities around the world, for better and for worse.
The Ushers: City of Columbus Board of Zoning Adjustment, February 23, 2016
Documents: Staff report, staff reports & exhibits, and the agenda for the day was given out. The staff reports & exhibits contain materials from each case that is represented. There are graphs, charts, and drawings that include measurements of proposed property plans. The staff reports was just a shortened version of the staff report and exhibits. It simply states the applicant number, location, proposal owners, and major points in the arguments. The agenda was a list of the proposals and applicant registry information.
Setting: We arrived at about 5:42 and were 1 of 3 people. People began to arrive right about 6:00, a few with poster boards. There were nine board members seated in a discussion table who had their own mics. People around are in conversation about various topics about development or properties around the Columbus, area. The setting is very relaxed and informal beforehand and during most of the hearings. One person reviews the staff report proposal and relevant data for each speaking party. The applicant proposal then begins to state their case. It finally started at 6:30 with a group swear-in to be individually recorded later.
First Hearing– applicant on spot.
The first applicant’s proposal was a request of extension on time on the building of a fraternity house on E. 15th. There was slight attitude from some members of the board at the mic who seemed to be in a hurry to settle this simple dispute. Slight discussion proceeded about why he wanted the extension, when the building process would begin again, then a motion to second, and then it was voted on and passed.
Second Hearing– BZA15-138.
Next a party began to speak on a call about a violation of a setback. A fence is the problem and in violation. One party moves to remove the fence, citing violation of the setback. Appellant wants to keep the fence and claims that he wants the fence to stay for his children. He talked about height of the fence. Party argued for the removal or declining the height of the fence and is also in violation for a tree in their yard. Stories were conflicting because the claim was the fence blocks visual clearance of the driveways. The tree blocks more of the view. Tension seems to rise from the opposing party who is claiming their are errors in the document but also that things are being changed each time this case is brought up. The order after voting was upheld and it was left to be negotiated by the parties.
BZA15-118 – 3100 South Hamilton rd.
Applicant is trying to convert a retail store into an event center and are looking to reduce the number of parking spaces from 300+ to 0 from preview board reviews of the board. There has been a new reconfiguration of the parking lot. City staff (department of transportation parking) is looking for approval of a few conditions upon approval of the new plan for the parking lot. Owners of the past K-Mart are looking to work with the applicant in the transformation to an event center different than the shrine temple and another event center which were or are in the process of demolition.
Talks of the capacity of the building plan with the number of parking spaces that would ensure the traffic flow is not affected. all conditions are relevant to the plan. Claim of no code on event center. Also discussed the easement between the “event center and the Kroger whom neighbors it. There was no opposition to the proposal. The board voted and passed a motion to go forth with the transformation.
Lucky 7
Procedure
In advance of the meeting, the Development Commission posts a listing of all the cases that met the cutoff for the coming meeting. Petitioners and challengers submit supporting documents which the board is able to review in advance, and city employees in relevant departments also do some research and are on hand to provide this data as needed. Each issue at the meeting is handled one at a time, with a short presentation and question-and-answer session from the petitioner, followed by the opportunity for other parties and members of the public to speak in support or against the issue. While there are rules as to how many people may speak to each side, and how long they have to speak, these are soft limits and are at the board’s discretion.
Once everyone’s spoken and have been questioned by the board, the petitioner receives a chance for rebuttal. The chairman then asks the board representatives from the transportation department and the parks and recreation department if there are specific issues related to traffic and the environment, respectively. Then, the vote is taken. This isn’t the final say on the matter, though: The board’s decision is just a recommendation to the City Council.
Atmosphere
The atmosphere is very participatory and open. Even without us students, many members of the public were in attendance, and even though many were in formal attire, no one seemed particularly out of place. The board members had a good sense of humour, and even when things became heated (as was the case for one of the issues), nothing got too carried away. The front of the room is a horseshoe-shape arrangement of tables, with the board to one side and city staff to the other, so there was no implied hierarchy. Most of the cases had no one speaking for or against it in addition to the petitioner, so things moved along quickly when possible.
Case Example
Case #6, 441 Lazelle Road, was an issue where the petitioner was hoping to build a Verizon Wireless cell phone tower on a piece of property currently zoned as Limited Commercial 3; the tower would be 110 feet tall, but the height limit for that zone is 25 feet. Though the community planners had approved it, there were members of the public speaking against it. They lived in a nearby condo community, and feared that the cell phone tower would ruin their view and decrease their resale value; another community member also feared potential adverse health effects from living so close.
While the condo owners described the tower as “125 feet from my front door”, in the applicant’s rebuttal, they stated that it was 203 feet away from the condo property line. Cell phone coverage in the area is limited, and this would be of a public good. When asked why they couldn’t place it elsewhere, the applicant stated that the land in the area is tied up with other owners, and that the area sewer system limits placement as well. It was also pointed out that more condos were due to be built between the current ones and the tower site, blocking view of it anyways, that it is designed to–even in the case of sabotage–collapse in the middle to not provide risk to nearby homes, and that the city has rules requiring dense vegetation around the tower base to hide sight of the fencing and maintenance buildings.
With their concerns satisfied, all six members of the board voted Yes.